Good point. Ali and that lot were lucky Golovkin wasn't around back then, he would have massacred them. He is known for having two fisted power and one of the highest KO% in history Tend is exactly the rule. Over a larger sample size individual anomalies and bad/good performances get averaged, and the tendency is exactly for bigger men to both hit harder and to be more durable.
The "rule" has been broken too many times to suggest world class cruiserweights and small heavyweights can't win, KO bigger guys or take shots from a bigger man a significant portion of the time. Smaller guys taking a better punch isn't rare enough to be considered an abberation. You talk about sample size, but how many cruiserweights has Fury dominated ?
No i have denunked the silly arguments with facts and numerous examples. Fury, Joshua and Dubois do not absorb punches better than many smaller heavies - Foreman, Holmes, Ali, McCall, etc. etc. Rocking Fury, Joshua and stopping Dubois is not even 10% as impressive as stopping a Foreman or Bonavena.
This is entirely conjecture. You do not have a crossection of them fighting the same opponents, which would be the minimum requirement (and still quite unscientific) for making such a claim. All you have are vague attempts to measure different eras and you are trying to compare things with a length of elastic as a ruler. Usyk never had the luxury of fighting against a field of midgets as a full fledged heavyweight. When he did fight against a smaller field, he showed that he is the #1 cruiserweight in history.
I never suggested smaller heavies can't win. What I am suggesting is that Usyk - when he sits on his punches - hits much harder than his record would suggest. Ai caramba, all these years boxing has used weight classes but MarkusFlores has demonstrated that it is totally unnessecary!
Are you crazy? Have you not seen Golovkin's chin? Can you not see his absurd KO %? What are you even saying?
It is not conjecture but reality. This is an absurd argument. This is like saying you can't compare the punching power of two heavies in separate eras because they did not fight the same opponents. Fully fledged heavy? He was already at least 210 lbs when he was at cruiser. And he has stopped no one at heavy except Dubois Couldn't stop Chisora. He isn't some great puncher and outside of Dubois, it is unlikely he will score any notable stoppages at heavy. Seriously. Beating a guy who arguably ducked his last opponent to ensure himself a title shot instead of fighting Parker or Kabayel isn't some great achievement.
What you are doing is comparing the speed of two sprinters by looking at them on different days, on different tracks and along a different distance and estimating it. Sure and his opponents were about the same size. It must have been luxurious for guys in the 70s to weigh in as heavy as 220lb and fight dudes that came in 185lb soaking wet. Gee I wonder why they "punched hard" 70s Foreman would have run a real risk of getting stopped himself by those two.
Don't duck the question. How many cruiserweights has Fury dominated. You brought up sample size, so name them Diminishing Returns, also Cooper was a big puncher for his size, Fury is not https://talksport.com/boxing/438216/tyson-fury-toughest-fight-steve-cunningham-wladimir-klitschko/ That actually happened. Fury admitted 210 pound featherfisted Cunningham was his hardest fight pre Usyk and nothing you say will change this. Also how much did Wilder weigh when he dropped Fury in the first fight ?
Fury is an actual heavy. The reason there are weight classes is because bigger guys tend to beat smaller guys. Golovkin is a much bigger puncher for his size than either Cooper or Cunningham. He would have dominated heavyweight
Stop ducking the question and appealing to what ifs. How many cruiserweights did Tyson Fury dominate. Henry Cooper has won fights at a 20lb+ disadvantage and was the size of a small cruiserweight. GGG wasn't even at that kind of disadvantage against Jacobs. Refused to move up for a while too